You are on page 1of 7

Name: Scott A.

McKee EDU 515 K-12 Data Driven Decision Making Project

December 15, 2012

In spring 2011, the School Improvement Team at your elementary school reviewed the year-end achievement data and decided that something needed to be done about school-wide declining reading and math scores. They focused on the third grade results because this is the grade in which state-wide assessments begin and they wanted a starting point for future elementary school success. The results showed that only 0! of the third grade students met or e"ceeded the state#s cut-off score for $proficient% in reading &Subgroup results' (hite - )!, *lac+-,0!, -ispanic - ,)!, .ow S/S - ,0!, /.. - ,1!, S(2 - )0!3. In 4ath, only )! of the third grade students met or e"ceeded the state#s cut-off score for $proficient% in math &Subgroup results' (hite - 10!, *lac+ - 0!, -ispanic - 2!, .ow S/S - ,5!, /.. - !, S(2 - ,2!3. Spring 2011 8ll 0rd 9rade (hite *lac+ -ispanic .ow S/S /.. S(2 ! 6roficient 7eading 4ath 0 ) ) 10 ,0 0 ,) 2 ,0 ,5 ,1 )0 ,2

:our School Improvement Team consulted with national e"perts about the school-wide trend and selected a new instructional program to implement to hopefully improve these results. *ecause your school is small, the new program would be implemented as a pilot in all 0 rd grade classrooms &only two classes' 12 in one, 10 in the other3. The team decided that if the spring 2012 results showed improvement in reading and math performance, then in fall 2012 they would maintain the intervention in 0 rd grade and e"pand it to ;th grade classes. 2uring the summer of 2011, all 0rd grade teachers were trained in the intervention and then participated in followup training and implementation monitoring during the 2011-12 school year. It is now spring 2012 and as a member of the School Improvement Team you are ready to evaluate the year-end achievement results. In determining whether the student met the cut-off<passing score you will use the Standard /rror of 4easurement and a 68% confidence interval. The cut-off<passing score for proficiency in reading is 3 ! and the cutoff<passing score for proficiency in "at# is $11. The reading test has a %8! relia&ilit' coefficient and the "at# test has a %8$ relia&ilit' coefficient. The data tables &download separate document3 contain the scores for the third grade students in reading and math as well as data indicating demographic characteristics. The team set 85% (assing as the criterion for s)ccess of the intervention. This 1)! goal a((lies to all 0rd graders as well as to 1)! of eac# s)&gro)(. :our role is to analy=e this data for the team to determine if the intervention was successful in reading and math overall and for eac# s)&gro)( of students. (hen you calculate your results, please be sure to ro)nd all ans*ers to t#e nearest #)ndred+ two decimal places. :ou need to submit ,a&les - and . &below3 which will provide a tabulation of the data. :ou also need to submit a *ritten s)""ar' describing all of the results and stating your conclusions and recommendations about the intervention. *ecause some people will not loo+ at or interpret your tables correctly, be sure to disc)ss all of the results from your table in your s)""ary as well. 1. :our summary (2-3 paragraphs) for the reading intervention should address a. The results and success of the intervention in reading overall b. 8 comparison of the results to last year#s results in reading overall c. The results and success of the intervention in reading for each subgroup separatel d. 8 comparison of the results to last year#s results in reading for each subgroup separatel

e. :our recommendations for continuing the intervention in reading in >all 2012 with the 0 rd grade and your thoughts about e"pansion to ;th grade classes. 2. :our summary(2-3 paragraphs) for the math intervention should address a. The results and success of the intervention in math overall b. 8 comparison of the results to last year#s results in math overall c. The results and success of the intervention in math for each subgroup se(aratel' d. 8 comparison of the results to last year#s results in math for each subgroup se(aratel' e. :our recommendations for continuing the intervention in math in >all 2012 with the 0 rd grade and your thoughts about e"pansion to ;th grade classes. Please note that the description of the intervention and actual implementation is intentionall' vag)e. (e are focusing only on an analysis of the scores<data and what this analysis suggests about the intervention. /e are not j)dging t#e t'(e or 0)alit' of t#e intervention or #'(ot#esi1ing a&o)t related factors% (e are wor+ing from the assumption that it was implemented consistently in all classrooms and that all students gave their best efforts when learning and being assessed at the end of the year. &6lease continue to the ne"t page3

!able A "ea#$%g Ach$e&eme%t "es'lts 1. 8ll 0rd 9rade Students ?@ 4ean @ S2 @ S/4 @ ! 6assing Successful &:<?3A Bhange from 2011 2. 7acial</thnic 2iversity ?@ 4ean @ S2 @ ! 6assing Successful &:<?3A Bhange from 2011 (hite 11 ;0;.,; 22.20 11.12! ? C,.12! *lac+ 1 ;0 . ) 01.0) 1 .)0! : C2 .)0 -ispanic , 055.10 10.00 10.00! ? C11.00 2) ;0;.;1 22.,0 1.1, 1;! ? C1;!

0. .ow Socio-economic Status &defined as Dualifying for free<reduced lunch3 ?@ 4ean @ S2 @ ! 6assing Successful &:<?3A Bhange from 2011 11 ;0,. 0 2,. ; 11.12! ? C1.12!

;. /nglish .anguage .earners ?@ 4ean @ S2 @ ! 6assing Successful &:<?3A Bhange from 2011 ). Students with 2isabilities ?@ 4ean @ S2 @ ! 6assing Successful &:<?3A Bhange from 2011 ; 011.)0 15.)0 )! ? C2)! ; 055. ) .;1 100! : C02!

"ea#$%g S'mmar ((lease beg$% o'r s'mmar here a%# co%t$%'e o% the %e)t page $* %ee#e#.) Introduction' 8fter selection and implementation of our new instructional program for the 2011-2012 school year we finally have the results of our year-end achievement assessment for reading and mathematics. The decision to implement our new instructional program was an effort to improve our school-wide trend in declining reading and math scores on state-wide assessments. *ased on comparative data from 2011 achievement testing our goal is to have an 1)! proficiency rate &passing rate3 for all 0rd graders, including subgroups for the 2012 achievement testing. 2epending on the success of these interventions, we will determine if we are to continue with these new instructional programs into the 2012-2010 school year and broaden them to our ; th grade students as we try to improve student proficiency in reading and mathematics. 7eading Summary' The results of the 2012 achievement testing data analysis for reading, illustrates improvement on the overall 0 rd grade reading scores. -owever, the success of the intervention of our new instructional program was not able to meet our goal of an 1)! proficiency rate. The intervention showed an 1;! proficiency rate, Eust 1! short of the 1)! goal for success of the new instructional programs. Ff the 2) students tested, 21 demonstrated a result of proficient or better in reading &1;!3. In comparison to the 2011 achievement testing with overall results of 0! proficiency, an overall improvement of 1;! in 2012 demonstrates a mar+ed improvement in reading for our 0 rd grade classes. The analysis of data also e"amined the results bro+en down into subgroupsG 7ace<ethnicity diversity, low socioeconomic status, /nglish language learners, and students with disabilities. *ased on our goal of 1)! proficiency for success overall and with regards to all subgroups, what follows is summary of each subgroup#s reading performanceG (hite<Baucasian, 5 out of 11 students in this subgroup were proficient or better for a subgroup proficiency rate of 11.12!. The interventions in this subgroup were not a successG however, results showed an improvement of ,.12! when compared to 2011 data. *lac+<8frican 8merican, out of 1 students in this subgroup were proficient or better for a subgroup proficiency rate of 1 .)0!. The interventions in this subgroup were successful by surpassing the goal. This demonstrates an improvement of 2 .)0! when compared to the 2011 data. -ispanic, ) out of , students in this subgroup were proficient or better for a subgroup proficiency rate of 10.00!. The interventions in this subgroup were not successfulG however, a mar+ed improvement was noted of 11.00! improvement when compared to 2011 data. .ow Socio-economic status &.ow S/S3 is determined by a student#s eligibility for free or reduced lunch as determined by the state using the family income. In this subgroup of the 11 students tested, 5 scored proficient or better for a subgroup proficiency rate of 11.12!. The interventions in this subgroup were not successful although an 1.12! improvement was achieved when compared to 2011 data. /nglish .anguage .earner &/..3 status is determined when a student#s primary language is not /nglish. This could be for a variety of reasons. In the Hnited States, the maEority of /nglish .anguage .earners are of -ispanic descent or immigrants from countries that spea+ another primary language. In this subgroup, of the ; students tested, all ; scored proficient or better. The interventions were successful in this subgroup with a proficiency rate of 100!, an increase of 02! when compared to 2011. 8ll ; students in this subgroup were also included in the -ispanic subgroup, which also surpassed the 1)! proficiency rate goal. Students with disabilities &S(23 are students who Dualify and receive services through the district#s Special /ducation 2epartment. These students undergo an evaluation and are provided an Individual /ducation 6lan &I/63 that may or may not include accommodations in instruction and<or testing based on their disability and educational needs. In this subgroup, of the ; students tested, 0 scored proficient or

better for a subgroup proficiency rating of )!. The interventions in this subgroup were not successful at meeting the goal but showed a mar+ed improvement of 2)! when compared to the 2011 data. 7ecommendations' *ased on the analysis of the data from the spring 2012 8chievement Test data, even though we were short of our goal of an 1)! proficiency rate, I would recommend that we continue with the new instructional program and it#s interventions for the 2012-2010 school year in 0 rd grade and continuing with ; th grade. The overall goal was only missed by 1!, with a 1;! gain over 2011. 8lso, all subgroups showed mar+ed improvement and it would be of value to give the interventions one more year to see if the improvement continues. It is possible that one school year was not enough to establish the gains we were see+ing. -owever, if at the end of the 2012-2010 school year, if the goals are not met for reading, I would recommend see+ing new intervention programs for reading in the future to achieve our reading ! proficiency rate goals.

!able + Mathemat$cs Ach$e&eme%t "es'lts 1. 8ll 0rd 9rade Students ?@ 4ean @ S2 @ S/4 @ ! 6assing Successful &:<?3A Bhange from 2011 2. 7acial</thnic 2iversity ?@ 4ean @ S2 @ ! 6assing Successful &:<?3A Bhange from 2011 (hite 11 ;10.12 2).2 2. 0! ? - .2 *lac+ 1 ;1;.,0 0,.11 0 .)0! ? -02.)0! -ispanic , ;0).00 ,.02 10.00! ? C11.00! 2) ;10. 2 2;.20 5.,5 ,0! ? -1)!

0. .ow Socio-economic Status &defined as Dualifying for free<reduced lunch3 ?@ 4ean @ S2 @ ! 6assing Successful &:<?3A Bhange from 2011 11 ;12. 0 2 .;, );.))! ? -1;.;)!

;. /nglish .anguage .earners ?@ 4ean @ S2 @ ! 6assing Successful &:<?3A Bhange from 2011 ). Students with 2isabilities ?@ 4ean @ S2 @ ! 6assing Successful &:<?3A Bhange from 2011 ; 05,.2) 1,.); 2)! ? -0 ! ; ;0,.)0 0.)1 100! : C20!

Mathemat$cs S'mmar &6lease begin your summary here and continue on the ne"t page if needed.3 4athematics Summary' The results of the 2012 achievement testing for mathematics illustrates a drastic decline in the overall performance in 0rd grade mathematics scores. The interventions appeared to show that the new instructional program was not successful in meeting our goal of 1)! proficiency, as a result, math scores declined significantly, only 1) of the 2) students tested scored proficient or better. The 2012 data &,0! proficiency3 when compared to the 2011 data & )! proficiency3 showed a decrease by 1)! over the course of one year, also 2)! short of our 1)! proficiency goal. (hen the data was bro+en down by subgroupsG race<ethnic diversity, low socio-economic status, /nglish language learners, and students with disabilities, only 1 of the , subgroups met or e"ceeded the goal. The following is a summary of each subgroup#s performanceG (hite<Baucasian, 1 out of 11 students in this subgroup were proficient or better for a subgroup proficiency rate of 2. 0!. The interventions in this subgroup were not successfulG results showed a decrease of .2 ! when compared to 2011 data. *lac+<8frican 8merican, only 0 out of 1 students in this subgroup were proficient or better for a subgroup proficiency rate of 0 .)0!. The interventions in this subgroup were not successful and were e"tremely short of the 1)! goal. These results demonstrate a decrease of 02.)0! when compared to the 2011 data. -ispanic, ) out of , students in this subgroup were proficient or better for a subgroup proficiency rate of 10.00!. The interventions in this subgroup were not a successG however, an improvement of 11.00! was achieved when compared to 2011 data. -ispanics were the only ethnic subgroup to show improvement, however, still did not reach the 1)! proficiency goal. .ow Socio-economic status &.ow S/S3 is determined by a student#s eligibility for free or reduced lunch as determined by the state using the family income. In this subgroup , out of 11 students tested scored proficient or better for a subgroup proficiency rate of );.))!. The interventions in this subgroup were not successful and there was a 1;.;)! decrease when compared to 2011 data. /nglish .anguage .earner &/..3 status is determined when a student#s primary language is not /nglish. This could be for a variety of reasons. In the Hnited States, the maEority of /nglish .anguage .earners are of -ispanic descent or immigrants from countries that spea+ another language. In this subgroup ; out of ; students tested, all ; scored proficient or better. The interventions were a success in this subgroup with a proficiency rate of 100!. The /nglish .anguage .earner subgroup was the only subgroup to surpass the 1)! proficiency goal in mathematics. (hen compared to the 2011 data, 2012 data showed an increase of 20!. Students with disabilities &S(23 are students who Dualify and receive services through the district#s Special /ducation 2epartment. These students undergo an evaluation and are provided an Individual /ducation 6lan &I/63 that may or may not include accommodations in instruction and<or testing based on their disability and educational needs. In this subgroup 1 out of ; students tested scored proficient or better for a subgroup proficiency rating of 2)!. The interventions in this subgroup were not successful at meeting the goal and also showed a decreased performance of 0 ! when compared to the 2011 data. 7ecommendations' *ased on the analysis of the data from the spring 2012 8chievement Test data, I would recommend that we do not continue with the new instructional programs used for intervention in mathematics for the 2012-2010 0 rd or ;th graders. The results of the 2012 achievement tests show a mar+ed decline in student overall performance and decline in ; out of , subgroups, with only 1 out of , subgroups meeting the 1)! proficiency goal. -owever, there may be some considerations about the new instructional programs success with two subgroupsG -ispanics and /nglish .anguage .earners. There may be some value to the new instructional programs when wor+ing with these subgroups and are worth further evaluation based on the analysis.